A sampling of results from criminal and civil cases are provided below (many litigated cases, and cases resolved outside of litigation, are not represented). Where appellate opinions are available, clicking the link will provide the opinion.

Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; murder conviction challenged on multiple grounds, including but not limited to felony murder jury instructions, legally insufficient evidence, police misconduct in seizing and interrogating the defendant, illegal seizure and search of cellular phone, ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to challenge police violation of federal and state constitutional provisions, as well as a challenge to the Massachusetts Felony Murder Doctrine that permitted conviction for murder even without the defendant's intention to kill or even awareness that the killing was occurring. The Supreme Judicial Court was persuaded that evidence was illegally seized and used at trial against the defendant in violation of the federal and state constitutions and that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge the seizure and use of that evidence. "Having determined that the judge erred in determining that the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search the defendant's cellular phone, and that trial counsel overlooked a meritorious argument that should have been raised in a motion to suppress, we turn to a consideration whether this error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice and would have influenced the jury's verdict. .... The defendant's conviction is vacated and set aside. the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. So Ordered."

Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; murder conviction challenged on multiple grounds, including but not limited to legally insufficient evidence, improper testimony by a cellular expert, the improper presentation of an FBI image analyst, the improper introduction of police accusations and the defendant's repeated denials during an interrogation, the improper introduction of flight evidence, the improper introduction of "consciousness of guilt" evidence, an improper closing argument by the prosecutor, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel on several grounds, including the failure to object to testimony from the FBI image analyst, allowing in highly prejudicial portions of an interrogation without objection, and the failure recognize an improper jury instruction. The Supreme Judicial Court was persuaded that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver of a car involved in a shooting or that the defendant shared the intent to kill. "Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for entry of a judgment for the defendant. So Ordered."

Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; murder conviction challenged on multiple grounds, including but not limited to constitutional right to confront evidence and present a defense, introduction of a music rap video as evidence of gang membership and intent to kill, standards for determining gang membership, use of photographic evidence. "Because we conclude that it was error to preclude the defendant from impeaching Williams's testimony as to Jamison by introducing Jamison's contrary grand jury testimony, to permit irrelevant and prejudicial identification testimony concerning certain photographs, and to allow admission of the prejudicial rap video, the convictions must be reversed."

Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; murder conviction was challenged on multiple grounds, including but not limited to prosecutorial misconduct, refusal to allow a defense of self defense, and legal standards for mitigating murder to manslaughter that are discriminatory towards women; "The defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial."

Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; murder conviction was challenged on multiple grounds, including bit not limited to police violations of the constitutional right to remain silent during interrogation, prosecutorial misconduct, and erroneous jury instructions: "The defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and deliberate premeditation is vacated."

Superior Court; Murder Conviction challenged on grounds of trial counsel's conflict of interest. "“Here, the defendant alleges that, a result of the divided loyalties of his trial counsel, he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The defendant bears the burden of proving such a violation. This Court concludes that the defendant has met his burden and that a new trial must be granted.”

Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole challenged as an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Massachusetts Appeals Court; Alleged Sexual Offenses; Appeal from convictions in the Middlesex Superior Court. Judgment on charge of assault with the intent to rape resulting in concurrent sentence of 19-20 years challenged as violation of Double jeopardy Principles: "the judgment is vacated, the verdict is set aside, and the indictment is dismissed."

District Court after remand;
evidentiary proceeding on claims that defendant's constitutional rights were
violated. Verdict: constitutional right under 5th and 14th Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Art. 12 of the Massachusetts Constitution were
violated; new trial granted.

Supreme Judicial Court; Second Degree Murder; Court creates new rule for all future cases throughout state barring prosecutors from participating in reward programs. "[W]e declare, exercising our superintendence authority, that prosecutors in the future may not provide (or participate in providing) monetary awards to witnesses contingent on a defendant's conviction. In so declaring, we recognize that, to prove the crime charged, prosecutors often need to procure the cooperation and truthful information or testimony of reluctant witnesses. The interests of justice, however, are not well served when a witness's reward is contingent on the conviction of a defendant rather than the provision of truthful information or testimony."

Supreme Judicial Court; Alleged Sexual Offenses; Appeal from convictions in the Middlesex Superior Court; Sentence imposed found to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution; Case Remanded with Order to vacate the sentence imposed.

In Re. Confidential Medical Malpractice Litigation

Lead counsel for Plaintiff in United States
Federal Court malpractice litigation. Settlement: $1,200,000.00.

Massachusetts Appeals Court; Attempted Murder, Assault & Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition. The defendant was denied his constitutional right to confront the witness against him. "The judgments are vacated, the findings are set aside, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings."

Massachusetts Appeals Court; Appeal from denial
of motion to revise and revoke sentence as untimely in the Barnstable Superior
Court; Rule 1:28 Decision: "The order denying the motion to revise and
revoke as untimely is vacated, and the matter is remanded for a decision on the
defendant's motion."

Lead counsel representing
defendant 183 Community Hospital based in Puerto Rico against financial claims
of publicly traded company with revenues of more than $30 million per quarter
asserted in US Court; mounted vigorous defense on constitutional,
jurisdictional grounds and forced settlement at less than 20% of amount sought
in lawsuit.